quote:

---

1. You can not set up an experiment to prove any of this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tkster

Hey guys, I am t.k. smith. ....I am the editor in chief of a humorous satiric newsletter called The Skeptic Times.
.........tk

---

quote:

---

Argument One: Evolution is universally accepted by scientists.
This is a lie. According to the New York Times, 45% of American scientists don't accept Darwinian Evolution. Of course, what evolutionists have done is say, "anyone who doesn't accept evolution is not a scientist." I'd like to point out the obvious: Evolutionists Do Not Decide What Is Science and What Is Not Science. If there is one thing that my short life has taught me it is that not everyone will always agree on everything. Some scientists will accept on thing, and others will accept another. Many scientists taught for 2000 years that big rocks fell faster than little rocks.
Another thing I have also learned shortly is that many scientists don't accept Evolution, but know that by voicing their opinion against it, they will be shunned. This has little to do with how science works, and more how a religious cult operates.
The fact that Evolutionists use this argument shows they know nothing about science, but a lot about peer pressure. Oh, it also shows that Evolutionists lie.

---

quote:

---

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

---

quote:

---

Challenge One:
It is quite common in today's world to see people offering money for one thing or another. It is not common, however, for someone to be offering a financial reward to a religious idea. I am offering a million dollars to anyone who can scientifically prove the textbook theory of evolution. When I say "textbook" I am referring to the following:

1. The Universe came from nothing without the work of a supernatural force.
2. All life originated from non-living matter.
3. All plants and all animals have one common ancestor.

---

quote:

---

You must disprove tk's Argument of Design without any design. tk's Argument of Design is the following:

Computers, cars, streets, buildings, trains, etc have all been built. There is nothing in the Universe that would indicate blind chance as a "maker" of anything. Thus since we all see designed materials and nothing else to our knowledge, the universe must have been designed by a Creator.

---

quote:

---

As has been stated ad nauseum, the ToE says nothing about origins, therefore the first two examples are bogus and not worth pursuing. The third is correct.

This rather reminds me of Hovind's silly, little challenge.

I'd suggest a reading on 'abiogenesis' and the 'Big Bang Theory', then revise the challenge accordingly.

---

quote:

---

Evolution 101

This is not a page dealing with what Evolution is, that is another page called "Defining Evolution: What Is It?" The one thing that I have learned shortly is the tactic of Evolutionists which I will expose on this page. They really know nothing about science and you'll see why. When applying skeptic logic to their science they fall apart. In order to defend themselves they come up with the usual non-scientific tactics. The following are their main arguments. Pay close attention to how many of them actually have anything to do with science:

Argument One: Evolution is universally accepted by scientists.

This is a lie. According to the New York Times, 45% of American scientists don't accept Darwinian Evolution. Of course, what evolutionists have done is say, "anyone who doesn't accept evolution is not a scientist." I'd like to point out the obvious: Evolutionists Do Not Decide What Is Science and What Is Not Science. If there is one thing that my short life has taught me it is that not everyone will always agree on everything. Some scientists will accept on thing, and others will accept another. Many scientists taught for 2000 years that big rocks fell faster than little rocks.

Another thing I have also learned shortly is that many scientists don't accept Evolution, but know that by voicing their opinion against it, they will be shunned. This has little to do with how science works, and more how a religious cult operates.

The fact that Evolutionists use this argument shows they know nothing about science, but a lot about peer pressure. Oh, it also shows that Evolutionists lie.

---

quote:

---

Which scientists with what qualifactions, at what facilities do they work, what is their field of research, in which peer-reviewed journals have they published, and why have I not heard of them?

And how is this page not dealing with evolution? Looks pretty evolutioney to me.

Further, please provide a link to the New York Times article. I am curious to see the context (I think I've read that one but I don't recall it clearly).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tkster

quote:

---

As has been stated ad nauseum, the ToE says nothing about origins, therefore the first two examples are bogus and not worth pursuing. The third is correct.

This rather reminds me of Hovind's silly, little challenge.

I'd suggest a reading on 'abiogenesis' and the 'Big Bang Theory', then revise the challenge accordingly.

---

The 'textbook' theory of evolution is a direct challenge to the authors of the textbooks. As I was taught in HS, in a unit on biological evolution, it included chemical and cosmic. Perhaps if the authors could portray the truth accurately, I wouldn't need to be offering challenges to these authors. The day Ken Miller gets his facts straight is the day I will take down that challenge, until then, my offer is valid to him and any other textbook author that distorts what biological evolution is.

If one knows the difference between biological and cosmic evolution, for an example, then they realize why the challenge is wrong. However, by realizing that they also must realize that some textbooks authors are also distorting things. Thus my argument is not against those who are knowledgeable.

tk

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf

Perhaps High School isnt the best place for accurate evolutionary studies information. You would know then that evolution and the big bang are only related in the mind of a creationist.

---

quote:

---

Forgive me, but I fail to understand the 'textbook' ToE. If a textbook is incorrect, doesn't it get revised in the next edtion?

Textbooks should get revised in every edition, as scientific knowledge increases so fast, now-a-days.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricky

(Psssst, author of www.skeptictimes.com)

Welcome to the forum tk, it will be interesting in carrying on our converstations in a different type of ring.

Edit: But I warn you, there are many skeptics here greater than I. If you do not wish to back your statements such as in the past, I rather suggest you don't post them.

---

quote:

---

Admit it. You don't have a million dollars! You don't have access to a million dollars! Your offer is a fake and you are bluffing. Nice try. Is honesty too much to expect? Is that what Jesus would do? Is that what your mother taught you?

---